Introduce liberal concepts in the theory of international relations.

Views: 1216
0 0
Read Time:8 Minute, 24 Second

Liberalism is the defining aspect of modern democracy, as expressed by all cookies of the term “liberalism”. “Free democracy” to describe a country with free and fair elections, rule of law, and protect freedom. However, when mentioned in the field of IR theory, liberals changed their differences. Liberalism has a wide range of ideas and debates about how institutions, behaviors, and economic relations and simplified the radical powers of the state. Compared to reality, our outlook has increased by other factors, notably the attention of international citizens and organizations. Liberalism is a part of realism in IR theory because it has a more optimistic outlook, based on a different reading of history than that found in realistic capital.

Liberal bases:

Liberalism is based on the moral argument that the ultimate goal of government is the right to life, liberty, and property of the individual. Thus, liberals emphasize the well-being of individuals as the basic structure of a just political system. Political systems ruled by uncontrolled powers such as monarchies or dictatorships cannot protect the lives and freedoms of the people. Thus, the main concern of liberalism is the creation of institutions that safeguard the freedom of the individual, limiting and confirming political power. While these are political issues in the country, the scope of IR is also important in the liberal bloc, as foreign state activities can have a strong impact on domestic freedom. Liberals are deeply concerned about military foreign policy. The main concern is the war that requires the state to establish military power. This power can be used in the fight against foreign countries. But it can also be used to oppress their citizens. For this reason, political systems rooted in liberalism often limit military power in a way that gives civilian control to the military.

Territorial war or imperialism – when states tried to build empires based on foreign countries – especially the rebellious liberals. Not just a war of expansion But strengthening the state at the expense of the people only, these wars require a lasting commitment to military occupation and political control of countries and peoples abroad. Employment and control require a large bureaucracy interested in maintaining or expanding the work of foreign territories. The main problem for Liberals is to develop a political system that can allow states to protect themselves from foreign threats without destroying the freedom of their citizens. The basic institutional analysis of power in a liberal state is free and fair elections in which people can remove their governors from power, providing a thorough overview of government behavior. Political power comes from dividing political power between different branches and levels of government, such as parliament, executive, and legal system. Allows you to evaluate and balance energy consumption.

The democratic theory for peace, perhaps the strongest liberal concept to emerge in IR theory, argues that democracies are unlikely to fight against themselves. There are two explanations for this phenomenon. First of all, democracies are characterized by restrictions on internal power, as described above. Second, democracies are often considered legitimate and non-threatening, and therefore have more synergy than non-democracies. Statistical analysis and historical case studies provide excellent support for the democratic theory of peace. But there is still some debate. First, democracy is a recent development in human history. This means that many instances of democracy have the opportunity to fight against each other. Second, we cannot be sure that this will be a kind of peace. Is it really ‘democracy’ or are the other factors associated with democracy a source of peace, such as power, alliances, culture, economy, etc.? The third thing is that while democracies are unlikely to fight against themselves, some scholars are disturbed. That they tend to be aggressive towards less democratic, for example when the United States fought Iraq in 2003, despite some arguments. The hope of peace in a democracy is gradually replacing a permanent world of war – as the realists describe it – is a permanent and important aspect of liberalism.

American liberal theory and imperialism:

One of the more interesting paintings of liberalism originated in the early twentieth-century American foreign policy. At that time, the United States was independent. But according to a historical narrative, imperialism also prevails (see Meiser 2015), so there seems to be some controversy. If we look closely, we can see that the United States is more restrained than is commonly thought, especially when compared to other powers of the time. A simple step is the level of colonial territories that exist in relation to superpowers. Coincidentally, in 1913, the United States claimed 310,000 square miles of colonial territory, compared with 2,360,000 for Belgium, 2,940,000 for Germany, and 32,860,000 for the United Kingdom (Bairoch 1993.83). This was a major consequence of the annexation of the Philippines and Puerto Rico, inherited after Spain’s defeat in the Spanish-American War in 1898. The United States demonstrated such restraint, as liberal theory suggests. Political structures limit expansion. An early analysis of Mexican relations with the United States in the early twentieth century helps to explain the reasons for American restraint.

In the spring of 1914, the United States invaded the city of Veracruz in Mexico over a dispute over the detention of some American seafarers in Mexico. However, relations between the United States and Mexico are already in jeopardy due to President Woodrow Wilson’s liberal belief that the United States is responsible for bringing democracy to Mexico, a dictatorship. The initial purpose of the United States war plans was to occupy Veracruz and nearby Tampico, and then block the east coast of Mexico until American dignity was confirmed – or until regime changes in Mexico took place. After U.S. forces attacked Veracruz, Wilson’s military chief and senior diplomatic adviser in Mexico pushed for increased political goals to consolidate Mexico City’s work. Full support for the conquest of Mexico Wilson did not comply with any instructions given to him, but he reduced the target of the war, suppressed forces in Veracruz, and withdrew US forces for several months. Wilson avoided the American people’s opposition, his own values, the hatred of the United Mexican people, and the military losses incurred in the fighting. International opinion seemed to influence Wilson’s thinking as American resistance began to spread throughout Latin America, as Arthur Link noted. ‘In general, this is an unfortunate time for the president and the people who claim to be the world’s moral leaders’ (Links 1956, 405).

By 1919, the US-formed Alliance for Intervention and Support was built on dissatisfaction with President Wilson’s earlier detention and changed fears to a Mexico-made Mexico constitution. All underground resources Owned Mexican mines and oil wells that may be at risk. Interventors want to make Mexico a defense state in America or at least occupy Mexico’s oil fields. The coalition launched the country to intervene, while Wilson diverted attention from peace negotiations in Europe and then failed in a stroke. The path to the intervention was only blocked if Wilson gained enough to regain control of the policy agenda and cut ties between the interventionists. Wilson has two main reasons for avoiding inconsistent policy paths. He first saw Congress. (With the support of some members of the executive branch) he demanded to shape American foreign policy, which Wilson considered unconstitutional. In the American system, the president has power over foreign policy. The allegation that it has a foreign policy with Mexico is a clear attempt to question the power of Congress to make policy. Second, Wilson is committed to maintaining a policy consistent with anti-imperialist norms. But it is also the standard of self-determination, a process by which a state determines its own state and chooses its own form of government. Both of these standards are still the foundation of liberal theory today.

In this case, relations between the United States and Mexico show how institutional and normative domestic structures prevent the use of violent power. The enslavement of this institution can be broken if the political culture of society does not have strong liberal standards. For example, counter-statistics (He believes that government powers should be tightened) and anti-imperialism. (The belief that invasion of a foreign country is wrong) is a liberal standard. A society full of liberal standards has a higher degree of restraint due to the restrictions of state power institutions. Liberal citizens oppose government actions that threaten their own independence and elect representatives who will act in accordance with liberal choices. The separation of institutional power from the United States allowed Wilson to thwart the efforts of Congress and others. The liberal anti-imperialist norms prevented the expansion of the American people through the mechanisms of public opinion and the personal values of the President of the United States. Institutions and customs that collaborate with global opinion place additional pressure on American political leaders due to increased trade opportunities with Latin America in the early 1900s, detailed by liberal theories, right income, and commodity opportunities offered along with this practice of self-determination and non-intervention. it prevented the expansion of the United States to Mexico during the most imperialist era in world history.

In summary:

The main argument for liberalism is that the severity of the neglect of violence is a major threat to individual freedom and should be suppressed. The main methods of veto are institutions and standards, at home and abroad. In international organizations and institutions, they limit their power by promoting cooperation and providing a means for imposing costs on states that violate international agreements. Economic institutions are particularly effective in promoting cooperation because of the many benefits that can be achieved through economic cooperation. Finally, liberal standards add additional barriers to the use of power by creating an understanding of what types of behavior are appropriate. Now it is clear that liberalism is not a “utopia” theory that describes the world of peace and happiness as the former accused. It conveys an appreciation in line with realism, rooted in evidence and deep theoretical traditions.

Average Rating

5 Star
4 Star
3 Star
2 Star
1 Star

Leave a Comment